Purpose This study investigates how organizational, enabling and technological changes interact to shape benefits realization throughout the implementation of manufacturing projects. Industrial robotics projects provide the empirical context for examining this problem and identifying the mechanisms through which business benefits are realized. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted across four manufacturing organizations. Data were collected through on-site observations, secondary data, and 22 expert interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings The framework shows that benefits realization unfolds across four interrelated lifecycle phases and depends on coordinated organizational, enabling and technological changes rather than technology implementation alone. Benefit dependency structures also vary according to project orientation, distinguishing problem-based from means-based initiatives. Research limitations/implications Although derived from industrial robotics projects, the framework offers broader theoretical propositions for Project Benefits Management. Future research should validate and extend it across different manufacturing settings, industries and digital transformation contexts. Practical implications The framework supports managers in developing more robust business cases by identifying organizational restructuring, workforce adaptation, and physical infrastructure changes as critical antecedents to benefits realization. Social implications By incorporating ergonomic, safety and workforce development considerations into benefits realization planning, the framework contributes to safer workplaces and continuous workforce development during digital transformation. Originality/value The study introduces an Integrated Framework for Benefits Realization (IFBR) that extends the traditional Benefits Dependency Network (BDN) beyond information systems by incorporating physical, regulatory, organizational and socio-technical dimensions in advanced manufacturing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Souza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: